Navigate:

10 breakout political reporters of 2012

The list includes reporters from the Romney press corps but none from the Obama side. | AP Photo

Chris Hayes, MSNBC

Chris Hayes hardly needs an introduction. His two-hour weekend show “Up With Chris Hayes” has been on the air for little over a year and has already gained a cult following. In a sea of lowest-common-denominator cable news — where “there’s a snake-eating-its-own-tail quality,” as Hayes puts it — “Up” is a refuge of wonky substance.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“We believe people should come away knowing more about the world. There should be some way in which the experience of watching the show adds to or shakes up your knowledge of the world,” he told POLITICO. “We have the luxury of a time slot that gives us the amount of time to have a substantive conversation.”

Hayes is such a rising star at MSNBC that he’s widely seen as a contender for weeknight primetime. But that comes with a price: less time to talk, less time to prepare. “It’s very hard to put a price on freedom,” he said. “Right now, we have the latitude and control to do what we want to do. I’d be reluctant to give that up.”

The BuzzFeed Brood

Most editors hire reporters based on their resumes. BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith hired his based on their web savvy. If you were a 20-something being quoted by Smith on Twitter, chances are he was looking to hire you when he took the helm at BuzzFeed in January. Largely on faith (and better pay), the 23-year-old Zeke Miller, 25-year-old McKay Coppins, 22-year-old Rosie Gray, and 22-year-old Andrew Kaczynski — then a senior in college obsessed with plumbing video archives — joined Smith at a viral content curation site that had no history of producing original work. Before they knew it, they were star political reporters at the much-talked-about outlet of the 2012 cycle.

“Andrew, Zeke, McKay, and Rosie each proved, in his or her own way, that the key to breaking through this competitive news cycle is doing what great reporters have always done — working sources and beats, telling people things they didn’t know, and doing it fast and well. Being truly native to Twitter, and intuitively understanding the importance of that social conversation, doesn’t hurt either,” Smith told POLITICO. “Working with them was really one of the joys of this year for me, and thousands of people who didn’t know any of their names in January are now their devoted readers and Twitter followers. And they are all four just getting started.”

Sasha Issenberg, Slate

Data dictated much of the campaign this year, and no one understood that quite as well as Slate’s Sasha Issenberg. Issenberg says he “stumbled into the geek subculture in campaigns” while writing a 2010 piece for The New York Times about voter turnout. “By the time I was done with it, I knew it was just a part of a bigger story of a generational conflict within the campaign world, and a way into a broader narrative about innovation in politics,” the author of “The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns” told POLITICO.

“I was able to cover 2012 solely through the ‘science of campaigns’ lens — really about tactics, research, innovation and mechanics — and never got distracted writing about candidates or issues or strategy,” Issenberg said. “In a polarized country, presidential elections are much more about mobilization than persuasion. Campaigns now have great tools to modify the behavior of non-voters…which is basically what mobilization is about. But journalists are still stuck in a paradigm where they think of the campaign as primarily an effort to change minds, with a ground game as some sort of finale to the real show.”

Issenberg is now turning his attention to his next book, which he describes as the “first definitive history of America’s battles over gay marriage.”

"How can anybody take this article seriously when it includes a partisan MSNBC host in the group?” Responding to Wolfgang33483 is a no brainer: It's because unlike the echo chamber Right with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as the foci, MSNBC does not engage in distortions, lies, and propaganda. Yet, most of the commentators do represent a point a view e.g. Joe Scarborough -- conservative; Rachel Maddow -- progressive or liberal.

As an armchair politico I appreciate this piece because it gets into the who's who behind the reporting. New media is the driving force in selling political ideas to some, yet the old time journalistic traditions still carry weight. I had not heard of some of these individuals, so its good to get a broader perspective.

MSNBC and most of it's hosts engage in whatever the White House talking points are, wether it's lies, the truth, the half truth, distortions or propaganda. Same thing with Current and almost every liberal talk radio host on down through the blogosphere. Like most of the left, there is almost no diversity in thought and no disagreement.

Obviously you were not listening when Treyon Martin stuff was going on - distortions to the highest degree to support the liberal agenda. Then the fact that they have Al Sharpton has his own show - give me a break.

Just what from Fox news do you consider distortion - maybe the Benghazi coverage because we really shouldn't cover that because it brings up real questions on the competency and honesty of the White House? Or maybe it's the Green Energy companies that are going under that the are tied to Obama's bundlers - like Solyndra and Abound Solar?

We have a news media now that is so manipulated by the White House - no one is really questioning the fact that supposedly Obama didn't find out about Petraeus until after the election, no one is questioning why we didn't hear about the Iranian jet firing on US Drones until after the election thought it happend a week earlier.

Checks and balances are needed to keep out politicians honest - one of the best checks has always been a media that did it's job.

I'm sure the fact that MSNBC is owned by GE (tax dodgers) and Obama (tax dodger) pal Jeffery Immelt and they are all pro Obama all the time, is pure coincidence.

I listen in on liberal radio and TV. You're robots.

Well, sure, C, feel free to correct me and provide your source and info. showing a direct link between the WH and MSNBC. I agree with you that there should not be one.

HOwever, as I noted, and which you ignored, there WAS one - for actual purposes of propaganda - between the WH and FOX by the Bush Admin. I don't recall any wingnuts ordering an end to that or even complaining about it.

But you're disingenuous anyway. Everyone knows it's the right that has the repetitive talking point thing going on. But we also know that the right "creates reality now", so I'm sure you believe your own nonsense.